1
|
Le Roy T, Wallet J, Barthoulot M, Leguillette C, Lacornerie T, Pasquier D, Lartigau E, Le Tinier F. IMRT in the treatment of locally advanced or inoperable NSCLC in the pre-durvalumab era: clinical outcomes and pattern of relapses, experience from the Oscar Lambret Center. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1236361. [PMID: 37810972 PMCID: PMC10554937 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1236361] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 10/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Intensity-modulated conformal radiotherapy (IMRT) has become the technique of choice for the treatment of locally advanced or inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nevertheless, this technique presents dosimetric uncertainties, particularly in treating moving targets such as pulmonary neoplasms. Moreover, it theoretically increases the risk of isolated nodal failure (INF) due to reduced incidental irradiation. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IMRT in patients with inoperable NSCLC and to describe the pattern of relapses. Methods Patients with locally advanced NSCLC treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy between 2015 and 2018 at the Oscar Lambret Center were retrospectively included in the study. Overall and progression-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The cumulative incidence of the different components of relapse was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method. Prognostic factors for relapse/death were investigated using the Cox model. A comparison with literature data was performed using a one-sample log-rank test. Results Seventy patients were included, and 65 patients (93%) had stage III disease. All the patients received chemotherapy, most frequently with cisplatin and navelbine. The dose received was 66 Gy administered in 33 fractions. The median follow-up and survival were 49.1 and 39.1 months, respectively. A total of 35 deaths and 43 relapses, including 29 with metastatic components, were reported. The overall survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 80.2% (95% confidence interval 68.3%-88.0%) and 67.2% (95% confidence interval 54.2%-77.3%), respectively. Locoregional relapse was observed in 14 patients, including two INF, one of which was located in the lymph node area adjacent to the clinical target volume. Median relapse-free survival was 15.2 months. No variable was statistically associated with the risk of relapse/death in multivariate analysis. Seven patients (10%) experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity. Conclusion The use of IMRT for locally advanced or inoperable NSCLC led to favorable long-term clinical outcomes. The rate of locoregional relapse, particularly isolated lymph node failure, was low and comparable with that of the three-dimensional radiotherapy series, as was the rate of early and late toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Le Roy
- Academic Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
| | - Jennifer Wallet
- Department of Biostatistics, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
| | - Maël Barthoulot
- Department of Biostatistics, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
| | | | | | - David Pasquier
- Academic Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
- CRIStAL UMR CNRS 9189, Lille University, Lille, France
| | - Eric Lartigau
- Academic Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
- CRIStAL UMR CNRS 9189, Lille University, Lille, France
| | - Florence Le Tinier
- Academic Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Alaswad M. Locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: current issues and recent trends. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2023; 28:286-303. [PMID: 37456701 PMCID: PMC10348324 DOI: 10.5603/rpor.a2023.0019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/29/2023] [Indexed: 07/18/2023] Open
Abstract
The focus of this paper was to review and summarise the current issues and recent trends within the framework of locally advanced (LA) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The recently proposed 8th tumour-node-metastases (TNM) staging system exhibited significant amendments in the distribution of the T and M descriptors. Every revision to the TNM classification should contribute to clinical improvement. This is particularly necessary regarding LA NSCLC stratification, therapy and outcomes. While several studies reported the superiority of the 8th TNM edition in comparison to the previous 7th TNM edition, in terms of both the discrimination ability among the various T subgroups and clinical outcomes, others argued against this interpretation. Synergistic cytotoxic chemotherapy with radiotherapy is most prevalent in treating LA NSCLC. Clinical trial experience from multiple references has reported that the risk of locoregional relapse and distant metastasis was less evident for patients treated with concomitant radiochemotherapy than radiotherapy alone. Nevertheless, concern persists as to whether major incidences of toxicity may occur due to the addition of chemotherapy. Cutting-edge technologies such as four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) should yield therapeutic gains due to their capability to conform radiation doses to tumours. On the basis of the preceding notion, the optimum radiotherapy technique for LA NSCLC has been a controversial and much-disputed subject within the field of radiation oncology. Notably, no single-perspective research has been undertaken to determine the optimum radiotherapy modality for LA NSCLC. The landscape of immunotherapy in lung cancer is rapidly expanding. Currently, the standard of care for patients with inoperable LA NSCLC is concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by maintenance durvalumab according to clinical outcomes from the PACIFIC trial. An estimated 42.9% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remained alive at five years, and free of disease progression, thereby establishing a new benchmark for the standard of care in this setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammed Alaswad
- Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
- Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Predina J, Suliman R, Potter AL, Panda N, Diao K, Lanuti M, Muniappan A, Jeffrey Yang CF. Postoperative radiotherapy with modern techniques does not improve survival for operable stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; 165:1696-1709.e4. [PMID: 36610886 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.09.062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2022] [Revised: 09/07/2022] [Accepted: 09/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aims to evaluate whether postoperative radiotherapy using newer techniques (intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT]) is associated with improved survival for patients with stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent complete resection. METHODS The overall survival of patients with stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC who received postoperative IMRT versus no postoperative IMRT following induction chemotherapy and lobectomy in the National Cancer Database from 2010-2018 was assessed via Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox proportional hazards analysis and propensity score-matched analysis. Additional survival analyses were also conducted in patients with completely resected stage IIIA-pN2 NSCLC who had upfront lobectomy (without induction therapy) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy alone or adjuvant chemotherapy with postoperative IMRT. Only patients receiving IMRT, which is a newer, more conformal radiotherapy technique, were included. Patients with positive surgical margins were excluded. RESULTS A total of 3203 patients with stage IIA-N2 NSCLC who underwent lobectomy were included. Five hundred eighty-eight (18.4%) patients underwent induction chemotherapy followed by lobectomy, and 2615 (82%) underwent lobectomy followed by chemotherapy. In unadjusted, multivariable-adjusted, and propensity score--matched analyses, there were no significant differences in overall survival between the patients who also received postoperative IMRT versus those who did not. CONCLUSIONS In this national analysis, the use of postoperative IMRT was not associated with improved survival in patients with completely resected stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC with or without induction chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jarrod Predina
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass
| | - Raiya Suliman
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass
| | - Alexandra L Potter
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass
| | - Nikhil Panda
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass
| | - Kevin Diao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson, ▪▪▪
| | - Michael Lanuti
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass
| | - Ashok Muniappan
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass
| | - Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Jairam V, Pasha S, Soulos PR, Gross CP, Yu JB, Park HS, Decker RH. Post-operative radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer: A comparison of radiation therapy techniques. Lung Cancer 2021; 161:171-179. [PMID: 34607209 DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.09.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2021] [Revised: 09/05/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Post-operative radiation therapy (PORT) in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) has historically been associated with toxicity. Conformal techniques like intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have the potential to reduce acute and long-term toxicity from radiation therapy. Among patients receiving PORT for LA-NSCLC, we identified factors associated with receipt of IMRT and evaluated the association between IMRT and toxicity. METHODS We queried the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database between January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2014 to identify patients diagnosed with Stage II or III NSCLC and who received upfront surgery and subsequent PORT. Baseline differences between patients receiving 3-dimentional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and IMRT were assessed using the chi-squared test for proportions and the t-test for means. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of receipt of IMRT and pulmonary, esophageal, and cardiac toxicity. Propensity-score matching was employed to reduce the effect of known confounders. RESULTS A total of 620 patients met the inclusion criteria, among whom 441 (71.2%) received 3D-CRT and 179 (28.8%) received IMRT. The mean age of the cohort was 73.9 years and 54.7% were male. The proportion of patients receiving IMRT increased from 6.2% in 2006 to 41.4% in 2014 (P < 0.001). IMRT was not associated with decreased pulmonary (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.62-1.29), esophageal (OR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.0.75-1.58), or cardiac toxicity (OR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.69-1.51). These findings held on propensity-score matching. Clinical risk factors including comorbidity and prior treatment history were associated with treatment toxicity. CONCLUSION In a cohort of elderly patients, the use of IMRT in the setting of PORT for LA-NSCLC was not associated with a difference in toxicity compared to 3D-CRT. This finding suggests that outcomes from PORT may be independent of radiotherapy treatment technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vikram Jairam
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
| | - Saamir Pasha
- Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Pamela R Soulos
- Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Cary P Gross
- Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; National Clinician Scholars Program, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - James B Yu
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Henry S Park
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Roy H Decker
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Guillemin F, Berger L, Lapeyre M, Bellière-Calandry A. [Dosimetric and toxicity comparison of IMRT and 3D-CRT of non-small cell lung cancer]. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:747-754. [PMID: 34183268 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.03.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2021] [Revised: 02/25/2021] [Accepted: 03/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Although three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) remains the gold standard as a curative treatment for NSCLC when surgery is not possible, intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is increasingly used routinely. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical (immediate toxicities) and dosimetric impact of IMRT compared to 3D-CRT in the treatment of locally advanced (stages IIIA to IIIC) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with concomitant radiochemotherapy, while IMRT in lung cancer was implemented in the radiotherapy department of the Jean-Perrin Center. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between March 2015 and October 2019, 64 patients treated with concomitant radiochemotherapy were retrospectively included. Thirty-two received 3D-CRT and 32 IMRT. The radiotherapy prescription was 66Gy in 33 fractions of 2Gy. RESULTS IMRT has improved coverage of target volumes (V95 increased by 14.81% in IMRT; P<0.001) without increasing doses to OARs and reducing dysphagia (RR=0.67; P=0.027). Low doses to the lung were not significantly increased in IMRT (pulmonary V5 increased by 7.46% in IMRT). CONCLUSION Intensity modulated radiotherapy, compared with the standard RC3D technique, improve the coverage of target volumes without increasing the dose to the OARs. It also improves the immediate tolerance of the treatment by reducing the number of dysphagia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Guillemin
- Département de radiothérapie, centre Jean-Perrin, 58, rue Montalembert, BP 5026, 63011 Clermont-Ferrand cedex 1, France.
| | - L Berger
- Département de radiothérapie, centre Jean-Perrin, 58, rue Montalembert, BP 5026, 63011 Clermont-Ferrand cedex 1, France
| | - M Lapeyre
- Département de radiothérapie, centre Jean-Perrin, 58, rue Montalembert, BP 5026, 63011 Clermont-Ferrand cedex 1, France
| | - A Bellière-Calandry
- Département de radiothérapie, centre Jean-Perrin, 58, rue Montalembert, BP 5026, 63011 Clermont-Ferrand cedex 1, France
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Heilbroner SP, Xanthopoulos EP, Buono D, Carrier D, Durkee BY, Corradetti M, Wang TJC, Neugut AI, Hershman DL, Cheng SK. Efficacy and cost of high-frequency IGRT in elderly stage III non-small-cell lung cancer patients. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0252053. [PMID: 34043677 PMCID: PMC8158910 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2020] [Accepted: 05/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background High-frequency image-guided radiotherapy (hfIGRT) is ubiquitous but its benefits are unproven. We examined the cost effectiveness of hfIGRT in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods We selected stage III NSCLC patients ≥66 years old who received definitive radiation therapy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results-Medicare database. Patients were stratified by use of hfIGRT using Medicare claims. Predictors for hfIGRT were calculated using a logistic model. The impact of hfIGRT on lung toxicity free survival (LTFS), esophageal toxicity free survival (ETFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and cost of treatment was calculated using Cox regressions, propensity score matching, and bootstrap methods. Results Of the 4,430 patients in our cohort, 963 (22%) received hfIGRT and 3,468 (78%) did not. By 2011, 49% of patients were receiving hfIGRT. Predictors of hfIGRT use included treatment with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) (OR = 7.5, p < 0.01), recent diagnosis (OR = 51 in 2011 versus 2006, p < 0.01), and residence in regions where the Medicare intermediary allowed IMRT (OR = 1.50, p < 0.01). hfIGRT had no impact on LTFS (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.86–1.09), ETFS (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.93–1.18), CSS (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.84–1.04), or OS (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87–1.04). Mean radiotherapy and total medical costs six months after diagnosis were $17,330 versus $15,024 (p < 0.01) and $71,569 versus $69,693 (p = 0.49), respectively. Conclusion hfIGRT did not affect clinical outcomes in elderly patients with stage III NSCLC but did increase radiation cost. hfIGRT deserves further scrutiny through a randomized controlled trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuel P. Heilbroner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Eric P. Xanthopoulos
- University of Wisconsin - Beloit Health Cancer Center, Beloit, Wisconsin, United States of America
| | - Donna Buono
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Daniel Carrier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Ben Y. Durkee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America
| | | | - Tony J. C. Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Alfred I. Neugut
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Dawn L. Hershman
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Simon K. Cheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Shintani T, Kishi N, Matsuo Y, Ogura M, Mitsuyoshi T, Araki N, Fujii K, Okumura S, Nakamatsu K, Kishi T, Atsuta T, Sakamoto T, Narabayashi M, Ishida Y, Sakamoto M, Fujishiro S, Katagiri T, Kim YH, Mizowaki T. Incidence and Risk Factors of Symptomatic Radiation Pneumonitis in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy and Consolidation Durvalumab. Clin Lung Cancer 2021; 22:401-410. [PMID: 33678582 DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2021.01.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2020] [Revised: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 01/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Data on the risk factors for symptomatic radiation pneumonitis (RP) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and consolidation durvalumab are limited; we aimed to investigate these risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS This multicenter retrospective study, conducted at 15 institutions in Japan, included patients who were ≥20 years of age; who started definitive CCRT for NSCLC between July 1, 2018, and July 31, 2019; and who then received durvalumab. The primary endpoint was grade 2 or worse (grade 2+) RP. RESULTS In the 146 patients analyzed, the median follow-up period was 16 months. A majority of the patients had stage III disease (86%), received radiation doses of 60 to 66 Gy equivalent in 2-Gy fractions (93%) and carboplatin and paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel (77%), and underwent elective nodal irradiation (71%) and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (75%). RP grade 2 was observed in 44 patients (30%); grade 3, in four patients (3%); grade 4, in one patient (1%); and grade 5, in one patient (1%). In the multivariable analysis, lung V20 was a significant risk factor, whereas age, sex, smoking history, irradiation technique, and chemotherapy regimen were not. The 12-month grade 2+ RP incidence was 34.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.7%-42.1%); the values were 50.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-63.5%) and 27.1% (95% CI, 18.8%-36.2%) in those with lung V20 ≥ 26% and < 26%, respectively (P = .007). CONCLUSION The incidence of grade 2+ RP was relatively high in this multicenter real-world study, and its risk increased remarkably at elevated lung V20. Our findings can aid in RP risk prediction and the safe radiotherapy treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takashi Shintani
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan; Department of Radiology, Japanese Red Cross Fukui Hospital, Fukui, Japan
| | - Noriko Kishi
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Yukinori Matsuo
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
| | - Masakazu Ogura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kishiwada City Hospital, Kishiwada, Japan
| | - Takamasa Mitsuyoshi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Kobe, Japan
| | - Norio Araki
- Department of Radiology, National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Kota Fujii
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Japan
| | - Setsuko Okumura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Amagasaki, Japan
| | - Kiyoshi Nakamatsu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Osakasayama, Japan
| | - Takahiro Kishi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka Red Cross Hospital, Osaka, Japan
| | - Tomoko Atsuta
- Department of Radiology, Tazuke Kofukai, Medical Research Institute, Osaka, Japan
| | - Takashi Sakamoto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyoto Katsura Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
| | | | - Yuichi Ishida
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tenri Hospital, Tenri, Japan
| | - Masato Sakamoto
- Department of Radiology, Japanese Red Cross Fukui Hospital, Fukui, Japan
| | | | - Tomohiro Katagiri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shizuoka City Shizuoka Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan
| | - Young Hak Kim
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Takashi Mizowaki
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Smith GL, Smith BD. Sea Change: A Decade of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Treatment of Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2020; 112:221-223. [PMID: 31647554 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz199] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2019] [Accepted: 09/25/2019] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Grace L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Jairam V, Park HS. Strengths and limitations of large databases in lung cancer radiation oncology research. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2019; 8:S172-S183. [PMID: 31673522 DOI: 10.21037/tlcr.2019.05.06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
There has been a substantial rise in the utilization of large databases in radiation oncology research. The advantages of these datasets include a large sample size and inclusion of a diverse population of patients in a real-world setting. Such observational studies hold promise in enhancing our understanding of questions for which evidence is conflicting or absent in lung cancer radiotherapy. However, it is critical that investigators understand the strengths and limitations of large databases in order to avoid the common pitfalls that beset observational analyses. This review begins by outlining the data variables available in major registries that are used most often in observational analyses. This is followed by a discussion of the type of radiotherapy-related questions that can be addressed using such datasets, accompanied by examples from the lung cancer literature. Finally, we describe some limitations of observational research and techniques to mitigate bias and confounding. We hope that clinicians and researchers find this review helpful for designing new research studies and interpreting published analyses in the literature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vikram Jairam
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Henry S Park
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.,Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Williams SB, Shan Y, Ray-Zack MD, Hudgins HK, Jazzar U, Tyler DS, Freedland SJ, Swanson TA, Baillargeon JG, Hu JC, Kaul S, Kamat AM, Gore JL, Mehta HB. Comparison of Costs of Radical Cystectomy vs Trimodal Therapy for Patients With Localized Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. JAMA Surg 2019; 154:e191629. [PMID: 31166593 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1629] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Importance Earlier studies on the cost of muscle-invasive bladder cancer treatments lack granularity and are limited to 180 days. Objective To compare the 1-year costs associated with trimodal therapy vs radical cystectomy, accounting for survival and intensity effects on total costs. Design, Setting, and Participants This population-based cohort study used the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and included 2963 patients aged 66 to 85 years who had received a diagnosis of clinical stage T2 to T4a muscle-invasive bladder cancer from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2011. The data analysis was performed from March 5, 2018, through December 4, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures Total Medicare costs within 1 year of diagnosis following radical cystectomy vs trimodal therapy were compared using inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity score models that included a 2-part estimator to account for intrinsic selection bias. Results Of 2963 participants, 1030 (34.8%) were women, 2591 (87.4%) were white, 129 (4.4%) were African American, and 98 (3.3%) were Hispanic. Median costs were significantly higher for trimodal therapy than radical cystectomy in 90 days ($83 754 vs $68 692; median difference, $11 805; 95% CI, $7745-$15 864), 180 days ($187 162 vs $109 078; median difference, $62 370; 95% CI, $55 581-$69 160), and 365 days ($289 142 vs $148 757; median difference, $109 027; 95% CI, $98 692-$119 363), respectively. Outpatient care, radiology, medication expenses, and pathology/laboratory costs contributed largely to the higher costs associated with trimodal therapy. On inverse probability of treatment-weighted adjusted analyses, patients undergoing trimodal therapy had $136 935 (95% CI, $122 131-$152 115) higher mean costs compared with radical cystectomy 1 year after diagnosis. Conclusions and Relevance Compared with radical cystectomy, trimodal therapy was associated with higher costs among patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The differences in costs were largely attributed to medication and radiology expenses associated with trimodal therapy. Extrapolating cost figures resulted in a nationwide excess spending of $468 million for trimodal therapy compared with radical cystectomy for patients who received a diagnosis of bladder cancer in 2017.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen B Williams
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston
| | - Yong Shan
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston
| | - Mohamed D Ray-Zack
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston
| | - Hogan K Hudgins
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston
| | - Usama Jazzar
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston
| | - Douglas S Tyler
- Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston
| | | | - Todd A Swanson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston
| | - Jacques G Baillargeon
- Sealy Center on Aging, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston
| | - Jim C Hu
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Sapna Kaul
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston
| | - Ashish M Kamat
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - John L Gore
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Hemalkumar B Mehta
- Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
de Leve S, Wirsdörfer F, Jendrossek V. Targeting the Immunomodulatory CD73/Adenosine System to Improve the Therapeutic Gain of Radiotherapy. Front Immunol 2019; 10:698. [PMID: 31024543 PMCID: PMC6460721 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00698] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2018] [Accepted: 03/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Extracellular adenosine is a potent endogenous immunosuppressive mediator critical to the maintenance of homeostasis in various normal tissues including the lung. Adenosine is either released from stressed or injured cells or generated from extracellular adenine nucleotides by the concerted action of the ectoenzymes ectoapyrase (CD39) and 5′ ectonucleotidase (CD73) that catabolize ATP to adenosine. An acute CD73-dependent increase of adenosine in normal tissues mostly exerts tissue protective functions whereas chronically increased adenosine-levels in tissues exposed to DNA damaging chemotherapy or radiotherapy promote pathologic remodeling processes and fibrosis for example in the skin and the lung. Importantly, cancer cells also express CD73 and high CD73 expression in the tumor tissue has been linked to poor overall survival and recurrence free survival in patients suffering from breast and ovarian cancer. CD73 and adenosine support growth-promoting neovascularization, metastasis, and survival in cancer cells. In addition, adenosine can promote tumor intrinsic or therapy-induced immune escape by various mechanisms that dampen the immune system. Consequently, modulating CD73 or cancer-derived adenosine in the tumor microenvironment emerges as an attractive novel therapeutic strategy to limit tumor progression, improve antitumor immune responses, avoid therapy-induced immune deviation, and potentially limit normal tissue toxicity. However, the role of CD73/adenosine signaling in the tumor and normal tissue responses to radiotherapy and its use as therapeutic target to improve the outcome of radiotherapy approaches is less understood. The present review will highlight the dual role of CD73 and adenosine in tumor and tissue responses to radiotherapy with a special focus to the lung. It will also discuss the potential benefits and risks of pharmacologic modulation of the CD73/adenosine system to increase the therapeutic gain of radiotherapy or combined radioimmunotherapy in cancer treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simone de Leve
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Florian Wirsdörfer
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Verena Jendrossek
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Palliative thoracic radiotherapy near the end of life in lung cancer: A population-based analysis. Lung Cancer 2019; 135:97-103. [PMID: 31447009 DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.02.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2018] [Revised: 02/05/2019] [Accepted: 02/21/2019] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Palliative thoracic radiotherapy (RT) can improve quality of life for patients with advanced lung cancer, but treatment can be associated with acute toxicity and symptomatic relief may take several weeks. The optimal fractionation schedule is not known. Delivery of RT near the end of life (EOL) is an emerging indicator of poor quality care. The aim of this study was to determine utilization of palliative thoracic RT in the last 4 weeks of life, and factors associated with its use, in patients with incurable lung cancer in a population-based healthcare system. MATERIALS AND METHODS All patients with lung cancer in British Columbia treated with palliative thoracic RT in 2014 and 2015 were identified. Associations between starting a course of palliative thoracic RT within 4 weeks of death and patient/treatment characteristics were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS 1676 courses of palliative thoracic RT were delivered to 1584 lung cancer patients. Median survival was 20 weeks. 12% of palliative thoracic RT courses were delivered in the last 4 weeks of life, with short fractionation schedules and simple RT planning techniques used more frequently near EOL. Of RT courses delivered in the last 4 weeks of life 89% were courses of 1 - 5 fractions, 75% were completed as prescribed and 94% involved simple 1-2 field RT techniques. Receipt of RT in the last 4 weeks of life was associated with male gender, younger age, poor performance status, metastatic disease, small cell carcinoma histology and no prior chemotherapy. CONCLUSION Further study and standardization of quality indicators for palliative RT utilization near EOL is required. Whilst clarification occurs, physicians should consider the prognosis of patients with incurable lung cancer and the realistic expectation of benefit from palliative thoracic RT when considering treatment indications and fractionation schedules.
Collapse
|
13
|
Wirsdörfer F, de Leve S, Jendrossek V. Combining Radiotherapy and Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: Can We Expect Limitations Due to Altered Normal Tissue Toxicity? Int J Mol Sci 2018; 20:ijms20010024. [PMID: 30577587 PMCID: PMC6337556 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20010024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2018] [Revised: 12/18/2018] [Accepted: 12/19/2018] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
In recent decades, technical advances in surgery and radiotherapy, as well as breakthroughs in the knowledge on cancer biology, have helped to substantially improve the standard of cancer care with respect to overall response rates, progression-free survival, and the quality of life of cancer patients. In this context, immunotherapy is thought to have revolutionized the standard of care for cancer patients in the long term. For example, immunotherapy approaches such as immune checkpoint blockade are currently increasingly being used in cancer treatment, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and there is hope from the first clinical trials that the appropriate integration of immunotherapy into standard care will raise the success rates of cancer therapy to a new level. Nevertheless, successful cancer therapy remains a major challenge, particularly in tumors with either pronounced resistance to chemotherapy and radiation treatment, a high risk of normal tissue complications, or both, as in lung cancer. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy and immunotherapy have the capacity to evoke adverse effects in normal tissues when administered alone. However, therapy concepts are usually highly complex, and it is still not clear if combining immunotherapy with radio(chemo)therapy will increase the risk of normal tissue complications, in particular since normal tissue toxicity induced by chemotherapy and radiotherapy can involve immunologic processes. Unfortunately, no reliable biomarkers are available so far that are suited to predict the unique normal tissue sensitivity of a given patient to a given treatment. Consequently, clinical trials combining radiotherapy and immunotherapy are attracting major attention, not only regarding efficacy, but also with regard to safety. In the present review, we summarize the current knowledge of radiation-induced and immunotherapy-induced effects in tumor and normal tissue of the lung, and discuss the potential limitations of combined radio-immunotherapy in lung cancer with a focus on the suspected risk for enhanced acute and chronic normal tissue toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florian Wirsdörfer
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
| | - Simone de Leve
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
| | - Verena Jendrossek
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Shrimali RK, Chakraborty S, Prasath S, Arun B, Chatterjee S. Impact of modern radiotherapy techniques on survival outcomes for unselected patients with large volume non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Radiol 2018; 92:20180928. [PMID: 30457882 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20180928] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is used, where necessary, for bulky or complex-shaped, locally advanced, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluate our real-world experience with radical radiotherapy including concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT), and analyse the impact of IMRT on survival outcomes in patients with larger volume disease. METHODS: All patients treated between May 2011 and December 2017 were included. Analyses were conducted for factors affecting survival, including large volume disease that was defined as planning target volume (PTV) > 500 cc. RESULTS: In 184 patients with large volume disease, the median overall survival was 19.2 months, compared to 22 months seen with the overall cohort of 251 patients who received radical radiotherapy. PTV and using CCRT were significant predictors for survival. IMRT was used in 93 (50.5%) of 184 patients with large PTV. The patients treated using IMRT had significantly larger disease volume (median PTV = 859 vs 716 cc; p-value = 0.009) and more advanced stage (proportion of Stage IIIB: 56 vs 29%; p-value = 0.003) compared to patients treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Yet, the outcomes with IMRT were non-inferior to those treated with 3DCRT. CCRT was used in 103 (56%) patients with large volume disease and resulted in a significantly better median survival of 24.9 months. The proportional benefit from CCRT was also greater than in the overall cohort. CONCLUSION: Despite being used for larger volume and more advanced NSCLC, inverse-planned IMRT resulted in non-inferior survival. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: IMRT enables the safe use of curative CCRT for large-volume, locally-advanced NSCLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raj Kumar Shrimali
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata , India
| | - Santam Chakraborty
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata , India
| | - Sriram Prasath
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata , India
| | - B Arun
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata , India
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Yegya-Raman N, Zou W, Nie K, Malhotra J, Jabbour SK. Advanced radiation techniques for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: intensity-modulated radiation therapy and proton therapy. J Thorac Dis 2018; 10:S2474-S2491. [PMID: 30206493 DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2018.07.29] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy (RT) represents an integral part of a multimodality treatment plan in the definitive, preoperative and postoperative management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Technological advances in RT have enabled a shift from two-dimensional radiotherapy to more conformal techniques. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), the current minimum technological standard for treating NSCLC, allows for more accurate delineation of tumor burden by using computed tomography-based treatment planning instead of two-dimensional radiographs. Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) and proton therapy represent advancements over 3DCRT that aim to improve the conformity of RT and provide the possibility for dose escalation to the tumor by minimizing radiation dose to organs at risk. Both techniques likely confer benefits to certain anatomic subgroups of NSCLC requiring RT. This article reviews pertinent studies evaluating the use of IMRT and proton therapy in locally advanced NSCLC, and outlines challenges, indications for use, and areas for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nikhil Yegya-Raman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Wei Zou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Ke Nie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Jyoti Malhotra
- Division of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Salma K Jabbour
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Chen MJ, Novaes PE, Gadia R, Motta R. Guidelines for the treatment of lung cancer using radiotherapy. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018; 63:729-732. [PMID: 29239460 DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.63.09.729] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/01/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
17
|
Roy S, Badragan I, Ahmed SN, Sia M, Singh J, Bahl G. Integration of radiobiological modeling and indices in comparative plan evaluation: A study comparing VMAT and 3D-CRT in patients with NSCLC. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018; 8:e355-e363. [PMID: 29703705 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.02.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2017] [Revised: 02/08/2018] [Accepted: 02/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this article was to generate an algorithm to calculate radiobiological endpoints and composite indices and use them to compare volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) techniques in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS The study included 25 patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with 3D-CRT at our center between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. The planner generated VMAT plans using clones of the original computed tomography scans and regions of interest volumes, which did not include the original 3D plans. Both 3D-CRT and VMAT plans were generated using the same dose-volume constraint worksheet. The dose-volume histogram parameters for planning target volume and relevant organs at risk (OAR) were reviewed. The calculation engine was written in the R programming language; the user interface was developed with the "shiny" R Web library. Dose-volume histogram data were imported into the calculation engine and tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), composite cardiopulmonary toxicity index (CPTI), morbidity index: MI = ∑j = 1#ofrelevantOARs(wj ∗ NTCPj), uncomplicated TCP (UTCP=TCP∗∏k=1#ofOARs1-NTCPK100, and therapeutic gain (TG): ie, TG = TCP ∗ (100 - MI) were calculated. RESULTS TCP was better with 3D-CRT (12.62% vs 11.71%, P < .001), whereas VMAT demonstrated superior NTCP esophagus (4.45% vs 7.39%, P = .02). NTCP spinal cord (0.001% vs 0.009%, P = .001), and NTCP heart/perfusion defect (44.57% vs 56.42%, P = .016). There was no difference in NTCP lung (6.27% vs 7.62%, P = .221) and NTCP heart/pericarditis (0.001% vs 0.15%, P = .129) between 2 techniques. VMAT showed substantial improvement in morbidity index (11.06% vs. 14.31%, P = 0.01), CPTI (47.59% vs 59.41%, P = .03), TG (P = .035), and trend toward superiority in UTCP (5.89 vs 4.75, P=.057). CONCLUSION The study highlights the utility of the radiobiological algorithm and summary indices in comparative plan evaluation and demonstrates benefits of VMAT over 3D-CRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Soumyajit Roy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency-Abbotsford Center, Canada; Division of Radiation Oncology and Developmental Radiotherapeutics, University of British Columbia, Canada
| | - Iulian Badragan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency-Abbotsford Center, Canada
| | - Sheikh Nisar Ahmed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency-Abbotsford Center, Canada; Division of Radiation Oncology and Developmental Radiotherapeutics, University of British Columbia, Canada
| | - Michael Sia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency-Abbotsford Center, Canada; Division of Radiation Oncology and Developmental Radiotherapeutics, University of British Columbia, Canada
| | - Jorawur Singh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency-Abbotsford Center, Canada
| | - Gaurav Bahl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency-Abbotsford Center, Canada; Division of Radiation Oncology and Developmental Radiotherapeutics, University of British Columbia, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Grant SR, Smith BD, Likhacheva AO, Shirvani SM, Rosen DB, Guadagnolo BA, Shumway DA, Holliday EB, Chamberlain D, Walker GV. Provider variability in intensity modulated radiation therapy utilization among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018; 8:e329-e336. [PMID: 29861349 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2017] [Revised: 01/19/2018] [Accepted: 02/13/2018] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In this study, we sought to examine the variation in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) use among radiation oncology providers. METHODS AND MATERIALS The Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was queried for radiation oncologists practicing during 2014. Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System code 77301 was designated as IMRT planning with metrics including number of total IMRT plans, rate of IMRT utilization, and number of IMRT plans per distinct beneficiary. RESULTS Of 2759 radiation oncologists, the median number of total IMRT plans was 26 (mean, 33.4; standard deviation, 26.2; range, 11-321) with a median IMRT utilization rate of 36% (mean, 43%; standard deviation, 25%; range, 4% to 100%) and a median number of IMRT plans per beneficiary of 1.02 (mean, 1.07; range, 1.00-3.73). On multivariable analysis, increased IMRT utilization was associated with male sex, academic practice, technical fee billing, freestanding practice, practice in a county with 21 or more radiation oncologists, and practice in the southern United States (P < .05). The top 1% of users (28 providers) billed a mean 181 IMRT plans with an IMRT utilization rate of 66% and 1.52 IMRT plans per beneficiary. Of these 28 providers, 24 had billed technical fees, 25 practiced in freestanding clinics, and 20 practiced in the South. CONCLUSIONS Technical fee billing, freestanding practice, male sex, and location in the South were associated with increased IMRT use. A small group of outliers shared several common demographic and practice-based characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen R Grant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Anna O Likhacheva
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, Arizona
| | - Shervin M Shirvani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, Arizona
| | - David B Rosen
- College of Medicine, The University of Arizona Health Sciences, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - B Ashleigh Guadagnolo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Daniel Chamberlain
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, Arizona
| | - Gary V Walker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, Arizona.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Cost of Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy for Older Patients with Stage III Lung Cancer. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2018; 13:1593-9. [PMID: 27299697 DOI: 10.1513/annalsats.201603-156oc] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
RATIONALE In the treatment of stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-RT) is the standard method for radiation delivery; however, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has been rapidly adopted. These two modalities may lead to similar survival, warranting a closer scrutiny of the costs involved. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to compare radiotherapy-related and total costs of older patients with NSCLC treated with 3D-RT versus IMRT. METHODS We conducted a population-based study of all Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older in a Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results region. Patients were diagnosed with stage III NSCLC diagnosed between 2002 and 2009. Patients received IMRT or 3D-RT in combination with chemotherapy within 4 months of diagnosis. Radiotherapy-related and total adjusted cost and survival of patients receiving 3D-RT versus IMRT were compared using propensity scores methods. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Of the 2,418 patients in study, 314 (13%) received IMRT. Adjusted analyses showed no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.12) in patients treated with 3D-RT versus IMRT. After adjusting for propensity scores, RT-related costs (estimated difference, $6,850; 95% CI, $5,532-$8,168) and total costs (estimated difference, $8,713; 95% CI, $4,376-$13,051) were significantly higher among patients undergoing IMRT. CONCLUSIONS The rapid adoption of IMRT for the treatment of stage III NSCLC has occurred in the absence of evidence from prospective randomized trials. Our results show that IMRT is associated with similar survival but increased costs, underscoring the need for continued research in IMRT and other new technologies.
Collapse
|
20
|
Chen J, Fu G, Li M, Song Y, Dai J, Miao J, Liu Z, Li Y. Evaluation of MLC leaf transmission on IMRT treatment plan quality of patients with advanced lung cancer. Med Dosim 2017; 43:313-318. [PMID: 29249566 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2017.10.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2017] [Revised: 10/17/2017] [Accepted: 10/26/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the impact of leaf treatment of multileaf collimator (MLC) in plan quality of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of patients with advanced lung cancer. Five MLCs with different leaf transmissions (0.01%, 0.5%, 1.2%, 1.8%, and 3%) were configured for an accelerator in a treatment planning system. Correspondingly, 5 treatment plans with the same optimization setting were created and evaluated quantitatively for each patient (11 patients total) who was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. All of the 5 plans for each patient met the dose requirement for the planning treatment volumes (PTVs) and had similar target dose homogeneity and conformity. On average, the doses to selected organs were as follows: (1) V5, V20, and the mean dose of total lung; (2) the maximum and mean dose to spinal cord planning organ-at-risk volume (PRV); and (3) V30 and V40 of heart, decreased slightly when MLC transmission was decreased, but with no statistical differences. There is a clear grouping of plans having total quality score (SD) value, which is used to evaluate plan quality: (1) more than 1 (patient nos. 1 to 3, 5, and 8), and more than 2.5 (patient no. 6); (2) less than 1 (patient nos. 7 and 10); (3) around 1 (patient nos. 4, 9, and 11). As MLC transmission increased, overall SD values increased as well and plan dose requirement was harder to meet. The clinical requirements were violated increasingly as MLC transmission became large. Total SD with and without normal tissue (NT) showed similar results, with no statistically significant differences. Therefore, decrease of MLC transmission did have minimum impact on plan, and it improved target coverage and reduced normal tissue radiation slightly, with no statistical significance. Plan quality could not be significantly improved by MLC transmission reduction. However, lower MLC transmission may have advantages on lung sparing to low- and intermediate-dose exposure. Besides conventional fraction, hyperfraction, or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), the reduction on lung sparing is still essential because it is highly relevant to radiation pneumonitis (RP). It has potential to diminish incidence of RP and improve patient's quality of life after irradiation with lowered MLC transmission.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiayun Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Guishan Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Minghui Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Yixin Song
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Jianrong Dai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
| | - Junjie Miao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Zhiqiang Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Yexiong Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Hawkins PG, Boonstra PS, Hobson ST, Hayman JA, Ten Haken RK, Matuszak MM, Stanton P, Kalemkerian GP, Lawrence TS, Schipper MJ, Kong FMS, Jolly S. Prediction of Radiation Esophagitis in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Clinical Factors, Dosimetric Parameters, and Pretreatment Cytokine Levels. Transl Oncol 2017; 11:102-108. [PMID: 29220828 PMCID: PMC6002355 DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2017.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2017] [Accepted: 11/15/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiation esophagitis (RE) is a common adverse event associated with radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While plasma cytokine levels have been correlated with other forms of radiation-induced toxicity, their association with RE has been less well studied. We analyzed data from 126 patients treated on 4 prospective clinical trials. Logistic regression models based on combinations of dosimetric factors [maximum dose to 2 cubic cm (D2cc) and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD)], clinical variables, and pretreatment plasma levels of 30 cytokines were developed. Cross-validated estimates of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and log likelihood were used to assess prediction accuracy. Dose-only models predicted grade 3 RE with AUC values of 0.750 (D2cc) and 0.727 (gEUD). Combining clinical factors with D2cc increased the AUC to 0.779. Incorporating pretreatment cytokine measurements, modeled as direct associations with RE and as potential interactions with the dose-esophagitis association, produced AUC values of 0.758 and 0.773, respectively. D2cc and gEUD correlated with grade 3 RE with odds ratios (ORs) of 1.094/Gy and 1.096/Gy, respectively. Female gender was associated with a higher risk of RE, with ORs of 1.09 and 1.112 in the D2cc and gEUD models, respectively. Older age was associated with decreased risk of RE, with ORs of 0.992/year and 0.991/year in the D2cc and gEUD models, respectively. Combining clinical with dosimetric factors but not pretreatment cytokine levels yielded improved prediction of grade 3 RE compared to prediction by dose alone. Such multifactorial modeling may prove useful in directing radiation treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter G Hawkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States of America
| | - Philip S Boonstra
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States of America
| | - Stephen T Hobson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States of America
| | - James A Hayman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States of America
| | - Randall K Ten Haken
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States of America
| | - Martha M Matuszak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States of America
| | - Paul Stanton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States of America
| | - Gregory P Kalemkerian
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States of America
| | - Theodore S Lawrence
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States of America
| | - Matthew J Schipper
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States of America; Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States of America
| | - Feng-Ming Spring Kong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University, 535 Barnhill Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46202, United States of America
| | - Shruti Jolly
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States of America.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Jouglar E, Isnardi V, Goulon D, Ségura-Ferlay C, Ayadi M, Dupuy C, Douillard JY, Mahé MA, Claude L. Patterns of locoregional failure in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with definitive conformal radiotherapy: Results from the Gating 2006 trial. Radiother Oncol 2017; 126:291-299. [PMID: 29203290 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2016] [Revised: 10/09/2017] [Accepted: 11/09/2017] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine the patterns of locoregional failure (LRF) in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred and fifty-four patients from the Gating 2006 prospective randomized trial were treated with conformal RT with or without respiratory motion management. For patients with a LRF as first event, treatment planning with simulation CT, pre-treatment 18FDG PET-CT and post-treatment images demonstrating recurrence were registered and analyzed. Measurable LRF was contoured (rGTV) and classified as in-field, marginal, or out-of-field. RESULTS Median follow-up was 27.8 months. Forty-eight patients presented with LRF. One-year and 2-year locoregional disease-free survival rates were 77% (95% CI 70-83) and 72% (95% CI 64-79) respectively. 79% of the patients with LRF as first event relapsed within the RT field (55% isolated), 30% had marginal LRF component. Isolated out-of-field failure occurred in only 3% of all patients. The regions of highest FDG-uptake on pre-treatment PET-CT were located within the recurrence in 91% of patients with in-field LRF. CONCLUSION In-field failure was the most common pattern of failure. Escalated dose RT with high-dose fractions guided by PET parameters warrants further investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emmanuel Jouglar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Saint-Herblain, France.
| | - Vanina Isnardi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - Dorothée Goulon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Saint-Herblain, France
| | | | - Myriam Ayadi
- Department of Medical Physics, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - Claire Dupuy
- Department of Medical Physics, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Saint-Herblain, France
| | - Jean-Yves Douillard
- Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Saint-Herblain, France
| | - Marc-André Mahé
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Saint-Herblain, France
| | - Line Claude
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Miao J, Yan H, Tian Y, Ma P, Liu Z, Li M, Ren W, Chen J, Zhang Y, Dai J. Reducing dose to the lungs through loosing target dose homogeneity requirement for radiotherapy of non small cell lung cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2017; 18:169-176. [PMID: 29024297 PMCID: PMC5689922 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2016] [Revised: 08/28/2017] [Accepted: 09/07/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
It is important to minimize lung dose during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this study, an approach was proposed to reduce lung dose by relaxing the constraint of target dose homogeneity during treatment planning of IMRT. Ten NSCLC patients with lung tumor on the right side were selected. The total dose for planning target volume (PTV) was 60 Gy (2 Gy/fraction). For each patient, two IMRT plans with six beams were created in Pinnacle treatment planning system. The dose homogeneity of target was controlled by constraints on the maximum and uniform doses of target volume. One IMRT plan was made with homogeneous target dose (the resulting target dose was within 95%-107% of the prescribed dose), while another IMRT plan was made with inhomogeneous target dose (the resulting target dose was more than 95% of the prescribed dose). During plan optimization, the dose of cord and heart in two types of IMRT plans were kept nearly the same. The doses of lungs, PTV and organs at risk (OARs) between two types of IMRT plans were compared and analyzed quantitatively. For all patients, the lung dose was decreased in the IMRT plans with inhomogeneous target dose. On average, the mean dose, V5, V20, and V30 of lung were reduced by 1.4 Gy, 4.8%, 3.7%, and 1.7%, respectively, and the dose to normal tissue was also reduced. These reductions in DVH values were all statistically significant (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two IMRT plans on V25, V30, V40, V50 and mean dose for heart. The maximum doses of cords in two type IMRT plans were nearly the same. IMRT plans with inhomogeneous target dose could protect lungs better and may be considered as a choice for treating NSCLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Junjie Miao
- Department of Radiation OncologyNational Cancer Center/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Hui Yan
- Department of Radiation OncologyNational Cancer Center/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Yuan Tian
- Department of Radiation OncologyNational Cancer Center/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Pan Ma
- Department of Radiation OncologyNational Cancer Center/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Zhiqiang Liu
- Department of Radiation OncologyNational Cancer Center/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Minghui Li
- Department of Radiation OncologyNational Cancer Center/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Wenting Ren
- Department of Radiation OncologyNational Cancer Center/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Jiayun Chen
- Department of Radiation OncologyNational Cancer Center/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Ye Zhang
- Department of Radiation OncologyNational Cancer Center/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Jianrong Dai
- Department of Radiation OncologyNational Cancer Center/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Ohri N. Radiotherapy Dosing for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma: "MTD" or "ALARA"? Front Oncol 2017; 7:205. [PMID: 28983464 PMCID: PMC5613081 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00205] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2017] [Accepted: 08/23/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) is typically treated with thoracic radiotherapy, often in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Despite tremendous advances in the evaluation, treatment techniques, and supportive care measures provided to LA-NSCLC patients, local disease progression and distant metastases frequently develop following definitive therapy. A recent landmark randomized trial demonstrated that radiotherapy dose escalation may reduce survival rates, highlighting our poor understanding of the effects of thoracic radiotherapy for LA-NSCLC. Here, we present rationale for further studies of radiotherapy dose escalation as well as arguments for exploring relatively low radiotherapy doses for LA-NSCLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nitin Ohri
- Radiation Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, The Bronx, NY, United States
- Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center, The Bronx, NY, United States
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Cremonesi M, Gilardi L, Ferrari ME, Piperno G, Travaini LL, Timmerman R, Botta F, Baroni G, Grana CM, Ronchi S, Ciardo D, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Garibaldi C, Orecchia R. Role of interim 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the early prediction of clinical outcomes of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) during radiotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy. A systematic review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017; 44:1915-1927. [PMID: 28681192 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-017-3762-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2017] [Accepted: 06/14/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) is characterized by aggressiveness and includes the majority of thorax malignancies. The possibility of early stratification of patients as responsive and non-responsive to radiotherapy with a non-invasive method is extremely appealing. The distribution of the Fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) in tumours, provided by Positron-Emission-Tomography (PET) images, has been proved to be useful to assess the initial staging of the disease, recurrence, and response to chemotherapy and chemo-radiotherapy (CRT). OBJECTIVES In the last years, particular efforts have been focused on the possibility of using ad interim 18F-FDG PET (FDGint) to evaluate response already in the course of radiotherapy. However, controversial findings have been reported for various malignancies, although several results would support the use of FDGint for individual therapeutic decisions, at least in some pathologies. The objective of the present review is to assemble comprehensively the literature concerning NSCLC, to evaluate where and whether FDGint may offer predictive potential. METHODS Several searches were completed on Medline and the Embase database, combining different keywords. Original papers published in the English language from 2005 to 2016 with studies involving FDGint in patients affected by NSCLC and treated with radiation therapy or chemo-radiotherapy only were chosen. RESULTS Twenty-one studies out of 970 in Pubmed and 1256 in Embase were selected, reporting on 627 patients. CONCLUSION Certainly, the lack of univocal PET parameters was identified as a major drawback, while standardization would be required for best practice. In any case, all these papers denoted FDGint as promising and a challenging examination for early assessment of outcomes during CRT, sustaining its predictivity in lung cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Cremonesi
- Radiation Research Unit, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy.
| | - Laura Gilardi
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy
| | | | - Gaia Piperno
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy
| | | | - Robert Timmerman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Francesca Botta
- Medical Physics Unit, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy
| | - Guido Baroni
- Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano University, Milano, Italy
| | - Chiara Maria Grana
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy
| | - Sara Ronchi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy
| | - Delia Ciardo
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy
| | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milano, Italy
| | | | - Roberto Orecchia
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milano, Italy.,Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Tam K, Daly M, Kelly K. Treatment of Locally Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2017; 31:45-57. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hoc.2016.08.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
27
|
Osborn V, Schwartz D, Lee YC, Lee A, Garay E, Choi K, Han P, Schreiber D. Patterns of care of IMRT usage in postoperative management of uterine cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 144:130-135. [PMID: 27887805 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.11.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2016] [Revised: 11/05/2016] [Accepted: 11/11/2016] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To analyze the patterns of care regarding intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) usage in the postoperative management of uterine cancer. METHODS The National Cancer Database was queried to identify women with endometrial adenocarcinoma who underwent hysterectomy followed by external beam radiation between 2004-2012. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze IMRT usage with comparison via the Chi Square test. Overall survival was also compared between IMRT and three dimensional conformal radiation therapy. Multivariable logistic regression and multivariable Cox Regression were used to identify covariables that impact IMRT usage and improved survival respectively. RESULTS 7839 women were included in this study. IMRT utilization increased from 1.9% in 2004 to 32.4% in 2012 (p<0.001). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for IMRT in 2012 compared with 2004 was 24.90, 95% CI 15.24-40.67 (p<0.001). Aside from year, other predictors of IMRT usage on multivariate analysis were positive nodes, higher dose, private insurance and higher income. Black race was associated with lower IMRT usage compared to Whites with an OR of 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.81 (p=0.001). IMRT was not associated with significantly increased survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73-1.01, p=0.06). Black race and positive nodes were associated with decreased survival within the group studied whereas private insurance and higher income were associated with improved survival. CONCLUSIONS In this hospital-based registry, IMRT has significantly increased in utilization for postoperative radiation in uterine cancer between 2004-2012 although not resulting in significantly improved survival. Socioeconomic and racial disparities exist in the allocation of IMRT usage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Virginia Osborn
- Department of Veterans Affairs, New York Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn, NY, United States; SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, United States.
| | - David Schwartz
- Department of Veterans Affairs, New York Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn, NY, United States; SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, United States
| | - Yi-Chun Lee
- SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, United States
| | - Anna Lee
- Department of Veterans Affairs, New York Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn, NY, United States; SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, United States
| | - Elizabeth Garay
- Department of Veterans Affairs, New York Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn, NY, United States; SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, United States
| | - Kwang Choi
- SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, United States
| | - Peter Han
- SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, United States
| | - David Schreiber
- Department of Veterans Affairs, New York Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn, NY, United States; SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, United States
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Kong M, Hong SE. Comparison of survival rates between 3D conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Onco Targets Ther 2016; 9:7227-7234. [PMID: 27920560 PMCID: PMC5125790 DOI: 10.2147/ott.s124311] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Randomized trials showing a clear survival benefit of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) over 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in the treatment of lung cancer are lacking. This study compared the survival rates of patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who were treated with either 3D-CRT or IMRT and analyzed the prognostic factors for survival. Methods From January 2008 to July 2015, 19 patients were treated with IMRT and 30 were treated with 3D-CRT in our institution. The choice between 3D-CRT and IMRT was determined by the physician based on tumor extent and general condition of the patients. The primary endpoint of this study was overall survival. The secondary endpoints were loco-regional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and the incidence of radiation-induced lung and esophageal toxicities. Results The 1- and 2-year overall survival rates were 94.7% and 77.1% in the IMRT group and 76.7% and 52.5% in the 3D-CRT group, respectively. The overall survival rates of the IMRT group were higher than those of the 3D-CRT group; however, these differences were not statistically significant (P=0.072). Gross tumor volume was significantly associated with the overall survival rate. The 1- and 2-year loco-regional recurrence-free survival rates were 63.2% and 51% in the IMRT group and 67.5% and 48.1% in the 3D-CRT group (P=0.897), respectively. The 1- and 2-year distant metastasis-free survival rates were 78.9% and 68.4% in the IMRT group and 62.6% and 40.9% in the 3D-CRT group (P=0.120), respectively. Chemotherapy and treatment interruption were significantly associated with distant metastasis-free survival. Conclusion IMRT showed comparable or better overall survival compared with 3D-CRT in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer. To confirm the results of this study, further randomized prospective trials comparing IMRT with 3D-CRT are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Moonkyoo Kong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Seong Eon Hong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Chun SG, Hu C, Choy H, Komaki RU, Timmerman RD, Schild SE, Bogart JA, Dobelbower MC, Bosch W, Galvin JM, Kavadi VS, Narayan S, Iyengar P, Robinson CG, Wynn RB, Raben A, Augspurger ME, MacRae RM, Paulus R, Bradley JD. Impact of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Technique for Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the NRG Oncology RTOG 0617 Randomized Clinical Trial. J Clin Oncol 2016; 35:56-62. [PMID: 28034064 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2016.69.1378] [Citation(s) in RCA: 536] [Impact Index Per Article: 59.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Although intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is increasingly used to treat locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), IMRT and three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy (3D-CRT) have not been compared prospectively. This study compares 3D-CRT and IMRT outcomes for locally advanced NSCLC in a large prospective clinical trial. Patients and Methods A secondary analysis was performed to compare IMRT with 3D-CRT in NRG Oncology clinical trial RTOG 0617, in which patients received concurrent chemotherapy of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without cetuximab, and 60- versus 74-Gy radiation doses. Comparisons included 2-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, local failure, distant metastasis, and selected Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3) ≥ grade 3 toxicities. Results The median follow-up was 21.3 months. Of 482 patients, 53% were treated with 3D-CRT and 47% with IMRT. The IMRT group had larger planning treatment volumes (median, 427 v 486 mL; P = .005); a larger planning treatment volume/volume of lung ratio (median, 0.13 v 0.15; P = .013); and more stage IIIB disease (30.3% v 38.6%, P = .056). Two-year OS, progression-free survival, local failure, and distant metastasis-free survival were not different between IMRT and 3D-CRT. IMRT was associated with less ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis (7.9% v 3.5%, P = .039) and a reduced risk in adjusted analyses (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.171 to 0.986; P = .046). IMRT also produced lower heart doses ( P < .05), and the volume of heart receiving 40 Gy (V40) was significantly associated with OS on adjusted analysis ( P < .05). The lung V5 was not associated with any ≥ grade 3 toxicity, whereas the lung V20 was associated with increased ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis risk on multivariable analysis ( P = .026). Conclusion IMRT was associated with lower rates of severe pneumonitis and cardiac doses in NRG Oncology clinical trial RTOG 0617, which supports routine use of IMRT for locally advanced NSCLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen G Chun
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Chen Hu
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Hak Choy
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ritsuko U Komaki
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robert D Timmerman
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Steven E Schild
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeffrey A Bogart
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Michael C Dobelbower
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Walter Bosch
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - James M Galvin
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Vivek S Kavadi
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Samir Narayan
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Puneeth Iyengar
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Clifford G Robinson
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Raymond B Wynn
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Adam Raben
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mark E Augspurger
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robert M MacRae
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rebecca Paulus
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeffrey D Bradley
- Stephen G. Chun and Ritsuko U. Komaki, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Hak Choy, Robert D. Timmerman, and Puneeth Iyengar, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Vivek S. Kavadi, Texas Oncology-Sugar Land, Sugar Land, TX; Chen Hu and Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center; James M. Galvin, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Philadelphia; Raymond B. Wynn, UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburg, PA; Chen Hu, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; Steven E. Schild, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Jeffrey A. Bogart, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Michael C. Dobelbower, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Walter Bosch, Clifford G. Robinson, and Jeffrey D. Bradley, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO; Samir Narayan, Michigan Cancer Research Consortium Community Clinical Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Health Services Community Clinical Oncology Program, Newark, DE; Mark E. Augspurger, Florida Radiation Oncology Group; Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL; and Robert M. MacRae, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Baker S, Dahele M, Lagerwaard FJ, Senan S. A critical review of recent developments in radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Radiat Oncol 2016; 11:115. [PMID: 27600665 PMCID: PMC5012092 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-016-0693-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 101] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2016] [Accepted: 09/02/2016] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality, and radiotherapy plays a key role in both curative and palliative treatments for this disease. Recent advances include stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), which is now established as a curative-intent treatment option for patients with peripheral early-stage NSCLC who are medically inoperable, or at high risk for surgical complications. Improved delivery techniques have facilitated studies evaluating the role of SABR in oligometastatic NSCLC, and encouraged the use of high-technology radiotherapy in some palliative settings. Although outcomes in locally advanced NSCLC remain disappointing for many patients, future progress may come about from an improved understanding of disease biology and the development of radiotherapy approaches that further reduce normal tissue irradiation. At the moment, the benefits, if any, of radiotherapy technologies such as proton beam therapy remain unproven. This paper provides a critical review of selected aspects of modern radiotherapy for lung cancer, highlights the current limitations in our understanding and treatment approaches, and discuss future treatment strategies for NSCLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Baker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, 11560 University Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G 1Z2
| | - Max Dahele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, Postbox 7057, 1007 MD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frank J Lagerwaard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, Postbox 7057, 1007 MD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suresh Senan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, Postbox 7057, 1007 MD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Is IMRT Superior or Inferior to 3DCRT in Radiotherapy for NSCLC? A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0151988. [PMID: 27100968 PMCID: PMC4839644 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151988] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2016] [Accepted: 03/07/2016] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction There are no adequate data to determine whether intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is superior to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes of IMRT and 3DCRT in the treatment of NSCLC. Methods No exclusions were made based on types of study design. We performed a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to April 30, 2015. The overall survival (OS) and relative risk (RR) of radiation pneumonitis and radiation oesophagitis were evaluated. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality and extracted data. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot using Egger’s test results. Results From the literature search, 10 retrospective studies were collected, and of those, 5 (12,896 patients) were selected for OS analysis, 4 (981 patients) were selected for radiation pneumonitis analysis, and 4 (1339 patients) were selected for radiation oesophagitis analysis. Cox multivariate proportional hazards models revealed that 3DCRT and IMRT had similar OS (HR = 0.96, P = 0.477) but that IMRT reduced the incidence of grade 2 radiation pneumonitis (RR = 0.74, P = 0.009) and increased the incidence of grade 3 radiation oesophagitis (RR = 2.47, P = 0.000). Conclusions OS of IMRT for NSCLC is not inferior to that of 3DCRT, but IMRT significantly reduces the risk of radiation pneumonitis and increases the risk of radiation oesophagitis compared to 3DCRT.
Collapse
|
32
|
Nguyen TK, Goodman CD, Boldt RG, Warner A, Palma DA, Rodrigues GB, Lock MI, Mishra MV, Zaric GS, Louie AV. Evaluation of Health Economics in Radiation Oncology: A Systematic Review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 94:1006-14. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.12.359] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2015] [Revised: 12/14/2015] [Accepted: 12/15/2015] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
33
|
Jegadeesh N, Liu Y, Gillespie T, Fernandez F, Ramalingam S, Mikell J, Lipscomb J, Curran WJ, Higgins KA. Evaluating Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the National Cancer Data Base. Clin Lung Cancer 2016; 17:398-405. [PMID: 26936682 DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2016.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2015] [Revised: 01/26/2016] [Accepted: 01/26/2016] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Reports have suggested improvements in dosimetry, toxicity, and quality of life with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The selection criteria for those patients who may benefit is unclear. This study sought to identify subgroups of patients who may derive survival benefit from intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS The National Cancer Data Base was queried for stage III NSCLC treated with radiation and chemotherapy alone with curative intent. All received ≥ 58 Gy. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test were performed to compare overall survival (OS) by treatment modality. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess association with OS. Propensity score matching was also implemented. RESULTS A total of 2543 patients treated between 2003 and 2006 were eligible; 422 (16.6%) received IMRT, 2121 (83.4%) received 3DCRT. In patients with T3 and T4 disease, IMRT was associated with an improvement in median OS and 5-year survival rate (17.2 vs. 14.6 months; 19.9% vs. 13.4%, P = .021.) In multivariable analysis, there was an interaction between treatment type and T stage that was found to be significant (P = .03). In the propensity matched cohort of T3 and T4 patients, the use of IMRT remained associated with improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.00; P = .048). CONCLUSIONS Use of IMRT in patients with T3 and T4 tumors was associated with improved overall survival in this large population-based analysis. This is a novel finding that is in concordance with the well-described dosimetric benefits of IMRT in NSCLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Naresh Jegadeesh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
| | - Yuan Liu
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Theresa Gillespie
- Department of Surgery, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Felix Fernandez
- Department of Surgery, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Suresh Ramalingam
- Department of Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - John Mikell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Joseph Lipscomb
- Rollins School of Public Health, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Walter J Curran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Kristin A Higgins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Yu B, Wang J, Xu Y, Su F, Shan G, Chen M. [Radiotherapy Techniques and Radiation Pneumonitis: A Lot To A Little Or A Little To A Lot?]. ZHONGGUO FEI AI ZA ZHI = CHINESE JOURNAL OF LUNG CANCER 2015; 18:752-7. [PMID: 26706952 PMCID: PMC6015184 DOI: 10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2015.12.07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
放射治疗是肺癌的主要治疗手段之一,目前使用的主流技术是三维适形放疗(three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, 3D-CRT)和调强适形放疗(intensity modulated radiation therapy, IMRT),两者各具特点。本文综述近年来两种放疗技术治疗肺癌的文献,重点讨论放射剂量在肺内的分布与放射性肺炎的关系,即高剂量分布在较小的肺体积与低剂量分布在较大的肺体积,两者哪种更易引发放射性肺炎(radiation pneumonitis, RP)。
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bingqi Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Hangzhou 310022, China
| | - Jin Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Hangzhou 310022, China
| | - Yujin Xu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Hangzhou 310022, China
| | - Feng Su
- Department of Physics, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology,
Hangzhou 310022, China
| | - Guoping Shan
- Department of Physics, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology,
Hangzhou 310022, China
| | - Ming Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Hangzhou 310022, China
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for lung cancer: current status and future developments. J Thorac Oncol 2015; 9:1598-608. [PMID: 25436795 DOI: 10.1097/jto.0000000000000346] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Radiotherapy plays an important role in the management of lung cancer, with over 50% of patients receiving this modality at some point during their treatment. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a technique that adds fluence modulation to beam shaping, which improves radiotherapy dose conformity around the tumor and spares surrounding normal structures. Treatment with IMRT is becoming more widely available for the treatment of lung cancer, despite the paucity of high level evidence supporting the routine use of this more resource intense and complex technique. In this review article, we have summarized data from planning and clinical studies, discussed challenges in implementing IMRT, and made recommendations on the minimum requirements for safe delivery of IMRT.
Collapse
|
36
|
Simone CB, Burri SH, Heinzerling JH. Novel radiotherapy approaches for lung cancer: combining radiation therapy with targeted and immunotherapies. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2015; 4:545-52. [PMID: 26629423 DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2015.10.05] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Targeted therapies and immunotherapies have quickly become fixtures in the treatment armamentarium for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Targeted therapies directed against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocations, and ROS-1 rearrangements have demonstrated improved progression free survival (PFS) and, in selected populations, improved overall survival (OS) compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Immunotherapies, including checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibodies against programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), have now also demonstrated improved survival compared with chemotherapy. The use of these novel systemic agents in non-metastatic patient populations and in combination with radiation therapy is not well defined. As radiation therapy has become more effective and more conformal with fewer toxicities, it has increasingly been used in the oligometastatic or oligoprogression setting. This has allowed improvement in PFS and potentially OS, and in the oligoprogressive setting may overcome acquired drug resistance of a specific lesion(s) to allow patients to remain on their targeted therapies. Molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies for patients with metastatic NSCLC have demonstrated much success. Advances in radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy, radiation therapy have led to combination strategies with targeted therapies among patients with lung cancer. Radiation therapy has also been combined with immunotherapies predominantly in the metastatic setting. In the metastatic population, radiation therapy has the ability to provide durable local control and also augment the immune response of systemic agents, which may lead to an abscopal effect of immune-mediated tumor response in disease sites outside of the radiation field in select patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles B Simone
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA ; 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Stuart H Burri
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA ; 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - John H Heinzerling
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA ; 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Comparative effectiveness of intensity-modulated versus 3D conformal radiation therapy among medicare patients with stage III lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2015; 9:1788-95. [PMID: 25226428 DOI: 10.1097/jto.0000000000000331] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The clinical benefit of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared to 3D conformal radiation (3D-RT) has not been well established for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Using SEER-Medicare, we identified Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with stage III NSCLC who received potentially curative (≥ 25 fractions) thoracic IMRT or 3D-RT from 2002-2009. Overall survival and number of hospital days within 90 days of radiation were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard and negative binomial regression models, respectively. Propensity score adjustment was used to control for clinical and demographic variables associated with outcomes. RESULTS IMRT comprised an increasing proportion of conformal thoracic radiation for NSCLC, rising from 3.0% in 2002 to 26.8% in 2009. Use of IMRT varied significantly by year of diagnosis, facility type, and geographic region and was more likely to be used among patients receiving chemotherapy or with higher comorbidity scores. Among patients receiving potentially curative treatment, there was no difference in overall survival (propensity adj HR .99, p = 0.83) or number of hospital days in the 90 days following radiation start (propensity adj HR 1.15, p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS When radiation is used to treat locally advanced NSCLC, IMRT is increasingly preferred to 3D-RT. However, among patients receiving potentially curative radiation there was no significant difference in overall survival or time spent hospitalized following treatment.
Collapse
|
38
|
IMRT and 3D conformal radiotherapy with or without elective nodal irradiation in locally advanced NSCLC: A direct comparison of PET-based treatment planning. Strahlenther Onkol 2015; 192:75-82. [PMID: 26438071 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-015-0900-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2015] [Accepted: 09/09/2015] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
AIM The potential of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as opposed to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) is analyzed for two different concepts of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-based target volume delineation in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC): involved-field radiotherapy (IF-RT) vs. elective nodal irradiation (ENI). METHODS Treatment planning was performed for 41 patients with LA-NSCLC, using four different planning approaches (3D-CRT-IF, 3D-CRT-ENI, IMRT-IF, IMRT-ENI). ENI included a boost irradiation after 50 Gy. For each plan, maximum dose escalation was calculated based on prespecified normal tissue constraints. The maximum prescription dose (PD), tumor control probability (TCP), conformal indices (CI), and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) were analyzed. RESULTS IMRT resulted in statistically significant higher prescription doses for both target volume concepts as compared with 3D-CRT (ENI: 68.4 vs. 60.9 Gy, p < 0.001; IF: 74.3 vs. 70.1 Gy, p < 0.03). With IMRT-IF, a PD of at least 66 Gy was achieved for 95 % of all plans. For IF as compared with ENI, there was a considerable theoretical increase in TCP (IMRT: 27.3 vs. 17.7 %, p < 0.00001; 3D-CRT: 20.2 vs. 9.9 %, p < 0.00001). The esophageal NTCP showed a particularly good sparing with IMRT vs. 3D-CRT (ENI: 12.3 vs. 30.9 % p < 0.0001; IF: 15.9 vs. 24.1 %; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION The IMRT technique and IF target volume delineation allow a significant dose escalation and an increase in TCP. IMRT results in an improved sparing of OARs as compared with 3D-CRT at equivalent dose levels.
Collapse
|
39
|
Han S, Gu F, Lin G, Sun X, Wang Y, Wang Z, Lin Q, Weng D, Xu Y, Mao W. Analysis of Clinical and Dosimetric Factors Influencing Radiation-Induced Lung Injury in Patients with Lung Cancer. J Cancer 2015; 6:1172-8. [PMID: 26516366 PMCID: PMC4615354 DOI: 10.7150/jca.12314] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2015] [Accepted: 07/19/2015] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: Dose escalation of thoracic radiation can improve the local tumor control and surivival, and is in the meantime limited by the occurrence of radiation-induced lung injury (RILI). This study investigated the clinical and dosimetric factors influencing RILI in lung-cancer patients receiving chemoradiotherapy for better radiation planning. Methods and Materials: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 161 patients with non-small-cell or small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC and SCLC, respectively), who underwent chemoradiotherapy between April 2010 and May 2011 with a median follow-up time of 545 days (range: 39-1453). Chemotherapy regimens were based on the histological type (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or SCLC), and radiotherapy was delivered in 1.8-3.0 Gy (median, 2.0 Gy) fractions, once daily, to a total of 39-66 Gy (median, 60 Gy). Univariate analysis was performed to analyze clinical and dosimetric factors associated with RILI. Multivariate analysis using logistic regression identified independent risk factors correlated to RILI. Results: The incidence of symptomatic RILI (≥grade 2) was 31.7%. Univariate analysis showed that V5, V20, and mean lung dose (MLD) were significantly associated with RILI incidence (P=0.029, 0.048, and 0.041, respectively). The association was not statistically significant for histological type (NSCLC vs. SCLC, P = 0.092) or radiation technology (IMRT vs. 3D-CRT, P = 0.095). Multivariate analysis identified MLD as an independent risk factor for symptomatic RILI (OR=1.249, 95%CI=1.055-1.48, P= 0.01). The incidence of bilateral RILI in cases where the tumor was located unilaterally was 22.7% (32/141) and all dosimetric-parameter values were not significantly different (P>0.05) for bilateral versus ipsilateral injury, except grade-1 (low) RILI (P < 0.05). The RILI grade was higher in cases of ipsilateral lung injury than in bilateral cases (Mann-Whitney U test, z=8.216, P< 0.001). Conclusion: The dosimetric parameter, MLD, was found to be an independent predictive factor for RILI. Additional contralateral injury does not seem to be correlated with increased RILI grade under the condition of conventional radiotherapy treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shuiyun Han
- 1. First Clinical Medical School, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China ; 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou China
| | - Feiying Gu
- 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou China
| | - Gang Lin
- 1. First Clinical Medical School, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China ; 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou China
| | - Xiaojiang Sun
- 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou China
| | - Yuezhen Wang
- 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou China
| | - Zhun Wang
- 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou China
| | - Qingren Lin
- 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou China
| | - Denghu Weng
- 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou China
| | - Yaping Xu
- 1. First Clinical Medical School, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China ; 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou China
| | - Weimin Mao
- 3. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Shrimali RK, Mahata A, Reddy GD, Franks KN, Chatterjee S. Pitfalls and Challenges to Consider before Setting up a Lung Cancer Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy Service: A Review of the Reported Clinical Experience. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2015; 28:185-97. [PMID: 26329504 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2015.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2014] [Revised: 05/27/2015] [Accepted: 08/12/2015] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is being increasingly used for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite the absence of published randomised controlled trials. Planning studies and retrospective series have shown a decrease in known predictors of lung toxicity (V20 and mean lung dose) and the maximum spinal cord dose. Potential dosimetric advantages, accessibility of technology, a desire to escalate dose or a need to meet normal organ dose constraints are some of the factors recognised as supporting the use of IMRT. However, IMRT may not be appropriate for all patients being treated with radical radiotherapy. Unique problems with using IMRT for NSCLC include organ and tumour motion because of breathing and the potential toxicity from low doses of radiotherapy to larger amounts of lung tissue. Caution should be exercised as there is a paucity of prospective data regarding the efficacy and safety of IMRT in lung cancer when compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and IMRT data from other cancer sites should not be extrapolated. This review looks at the use of IMRT in NSCLC, addresses the challenges and highlights the potential benefits of using this complex radiotherapy technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R K Shrimali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, India.
| | - A Mahata
- Medical Physics, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, India
| | - G D Reddy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, India
| | - K N Franks
- Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - S Chatterjee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, India
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
The Role of Surgical Resection in Stage IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Decision and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100:2026-32; discussion 2032. [PMID: 26319488 DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.05.091] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2015] [Revised: 05/12/2015] [Accepted: 05/15/2015] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of combination chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgical intervention (CRS) vs definitive chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CR) in clinical stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients at academic and nonacademic centers. METHODS Patients with clinical stage IIIA NSCLC receiving CR or CRS from 1998 to 2010 were identified in the National Cancer Data Base. Propensity score matching on patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics was performed. Medicare allowable charges were used for treatment costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was based on probabilistic 5-year survival and calculated as cost per life-year gained. RESULTS We identified 5,265 CR and CRS matched patient pairs. Surgical resection imparted an increased effectiveness of 0.83 life-years, with an ICER of $17,618. Among nonacademic centers, 1,634 matched CR and CRS patients demonstrated a benefit with surgical resection of 0.86 life-years gained, for an ICER of $17,124. At academic centers, 3,201 matched CR and CRS patients had increased survival of 0.81 life-years with surgical resection, for an ICER of $18,144. Finally, 3,713 CRS patients were matched between academic and nonacademic centers. Academic center surgical patients had an increased effectiveness of 1.5 months gained and dominated the model with lower surgical cost estimates associated with lower 30-day mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS In stage IIIA NSCLC, the selective addition of surgical resection to CR is cost-effective compared with definitive chemoradiation therapy at nonacademic and academic centers. These conclusions are valid over a range of clinically meaningful variations in cost and treatment outcomes.
Collapse
|
42
|
Fleckenstein J, Eschler A, Kremp K, Kremp S, Rübe C. Dose distribution and tumor control probability in out-of-field lymph node stations in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) vs 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) of non-small-cell lung cancer: an in silico analysis. Radiat Oncol 2015; 10:178. [PMID: 26292716 PMCID: PMC4554351 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-015-0485-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2015] [Accepted: 08/11/2015] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The advent of IMRT and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) in combination with involved-field radiotherapy (IF-RT) in inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer results in a decreased incidental dose deposition in elective nodal stations. While incidental nodal irradiation is considered a relevant by-product of 3D-CRT to control microscopic disease this planning study analyzed the impact of IMRT on dosimetric parameters and tumor control probabilities (TCP) in elective nodal stations in direct comparison with 3D-CRT. Methods and materials The retrospective planning study was performed on 41 patients with NSCLC (stages II-III). The CTV was defined as the primary tumor (GTV + 3 mm) and all FDG-PET-positive lymph node stations. As to the PTV (CTV + 7 mm), both an IMRT plan and a 3D-CRT plan were established. Plans were escalated until the pre-defined dose-constraints of normal tissues (spinal cord, lung, esophagus and heart) were reached. Additionally, IMRT plans were normalized to the total dose of the corresponding 3D-CRT. For two groups of out-of-field mediastinal node stations (all lymph node stations not included in the CTV (LNall_el) and those directly adjacent to the CTV (LNadj_el)) the equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and the TCP (for microscopic disease a D50 of 36.5 Gy was assumed) for the treatment with IMRT vs 3D-CRT were calculated. Results In comparison, a significantly higher total dose for the PTV could be achieved with the IMRT planning as opposed to conventional 3D-CRT planning (74.3 Gy vs 70.1 Gy; p = 0.03). In identical total reference doses, the EUD of LNadj_el is significantly lower with IMRT than with 3D-CRT (40.4 Gy vs. 44.2 Gy. P = 0.05) and a significant reduction of TCP with IMRT vs 3D-CRT was demonstrated for LNall_el and LNadj_el (12.6 % vs. 14.8 %; and 23.6 % vs 27.3 %, respectively). Conclusions In comparison with 3D-CRT, IMRT comes along with a decreased EUD in out-of-field lymph node stations. This translates into a statistically significant decrease in TCP-values. Yet, the combination of IF-RT and IMRT leads to a significantly better sparing of normal tissues and higher total doses whereas the potential therapeutic drawback of decreased incidental irradiation of elective lymph nodes is moderate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jochen Fleckenstein
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Saarland University Medical School, 66421, Homburg, Germany.
| | - Andrea Eschler
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Saarland University Medical School, 66421, Homburg, Germany.
| | - Katharina Kremp
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Saarland University Medical School, Homburg, Germany.
| | - Stephanie Kremp
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Saarland University Medical School, 66421, Homburg, Germany.
| | - Christian Rübe
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Saarland University Medical School, 66421, Homburg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Ling DC, Hess CB, Chen AM, Daly ME. Comparison of Toxicity Between Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 2015; 17:18-23. [PMID: 26303127 DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2015.07.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2015] [Revised: 07/05/2015] [Accepted: 07/21/2015] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in reducing treatment-related toxicity for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains incompletely defined. We compared acute toxicity and oncologic outcomes in a large cohort of patients treated with IMRT or 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3-DCRT), with or without elective nodal irradiation (ENI). METHODS A single-institution retrospective review was performed evaluating 145 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Sixty-five (44.8%) were treated with 3-DCRT using ENI, 43 (30.0%) with 3-DCRT using involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT), and 37 (25.5%) with IMRT using IFRT. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy. Comparison of acute toxicities by treatment technique (IMRT vs. 3-DCRT) and extent of nodal irradiation (3-DCRT-IFRT vs. 3-DCRT-ENI) was performed for grade 2 or higher esophagitis or pneumonitis, number of acute hospitalizations, incidence of opioid requirement, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy utilization, and percentage weight loss during treatment. Local control and overall survival were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS We identified no significant differences in any measures of acute toxicity by treatment technique or extent of nodal irradiation. There was a trend toward lower rates of grade 2 or higher pneumonitis among IMRT patients compared to 3-DCRT patients (5.4% vs. 23.0%; P = .065). Local control and overall survival were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSION Acute and subacute toxicities were similar for patients treated with IMRT and with 3-DCRT with or without ENI, with a nonsignificant trend toward a reduction in pneumonitis with IMRT. Larger studies are needed to better define which patients will benefit from IMRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diane C Ling
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA
| | - Clayton B Hess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA
| | - Allen M Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Megan E Daly
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA.
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Zhu Z, Fu X. The radiation techniques of tomotherapy & intensity-modulated radiation therapy applied to lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2015. [PMID: 26207214 DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2015.01.07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Radiotherapy (RT) plays an important role in the management of lung cancer. Development of radiation techniques is a possible way to improve the effect of RT by reducing toxicities through better sparing the surrounding normal tissues. This article will review the application of two forms of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), fixed-field IMRT and helical tomotherapy (HT) in lung cancer, including dosimetric and clinical studies. The advantages and potential disadvantages of these two techniques are also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhengfei Zhu
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China ; 2 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
| | - Xiaolong Fu
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China ; 2 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Kao J, Pettit J, Zahid S, Gold KD, Palatt T. Esophagus and Contralateral Lung-Sparing IMRT for Locally Advanced Lung Cancer in the Community Hospital Setting. Front Oncol 2015; 5:127. [PMID: 26157703 PMCID: PMC4477157 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00127] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2015] [Accepted: 05/21/2015] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal technique for performing lung IMRT remains poorly defined. We hypothesize that improved dose distributions associated with normal tissue-sparing IMRT can allow safe dose escalation resulting in decreased acute and late toxicity. METHODS We performed a retrospective analysis of 82 consecutive lung cancer patients treated with curative intent from 1/10 to 9/14. From 1/10 to 4/12, 44 patients were treated with the community standard of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or IMRT without specific esophagus or contralateral lung constraints (standard RT). From 5/12 to 9/14, 38 patients were treated with normal tissue-sparing IMRT with selective sparing of contralateral lung and esophagus. The study endpoints were dosimetry, toxicity, and overall survival. RESULTS Despite higher mean prescribed radiation doses in the normal tissue-sparing IMRT cohort (64.5 vs. 60.8 Gy, p = 0.04), patients treated with normal tissue-sparing IMRT had significantly lower lung V20, V10, V5, mean lung, esophageal V60, and mean esophagus doses compared to patients treated with standard RT (p ≤ 0.001). Patients in the normal tissue-sparing IMRT group had reduced acute grade ≥3 esophagitis (0 vs. 11%, p < 0.001), acute grade ≥2 weight loss (2 vs. 16%, p = 0.04), and late grade ≥2 pneumonitis (7 vs. 21%, p = 0.02). The 2-year overall survival was 52% with normal tissue-sparing IMRT arm compared to 28% for standard RT (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION These data provide proof of principle that suboptimal radiation dose distributions are associated with significant acute and late lung and esophageal toxicity that may result in hospitalization or even premature mortality. Strict attention to contralateral lung and esophageal dose-volume constraints are feasible in the community hospital setting without sacrificing disease control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Johnny Kao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, West Islip, NY, USA
| | - Jeffrey Pettit
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, West Islip, NY, USA
| | - Soombal Zahid
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, West Islip, NY, USA
| | - Kenneth D. Gold
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, West Islip, NY, USA
| | - Terry Palatt
- Department of Surgery, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, West Islip, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Shumway DA, Griffith KA, Pierce LJ, Feng M, Moran JM, Stenmark MH, Jagsi R, Hayman JA. Wide Variation in the Diffusion of a New Technology: Practice-Based Trends in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Use in the State of Michigan, With Implications for IMRT Use Nationally. J Oncol Pract 2015; 11:e373-9. [DOI: 10.1200/jop.2014.002568] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
IMRT use grew significantly across the state of Michigan over time, with four-fold variability among centers, which was related to facility characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Mary Feng
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Price A. Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, Not 3 Dimensional Conformal, Is the Preferred Technique for Treating Locally Advanced Disease With High-Dose Radiotherapy: The Argument Against. Semin Radiat Oncol 2015; 25:117-21. [DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2014.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
48
|
Noh JM, Kim JM, Ahn YC, Pyo H, Kim B, Oh D, Ju SG, Kim JS, Shin JS, Hong CS, Park H, Lee E. Effect of Radiation Therapy Techniques on Outcome in N3-positive IIIB Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Res Treat 2015; 48:106-14. [PMID: 25687865 PMCID: PMC4720085 DOI: 10.4143/crt.2014.131] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2014] [Accepted: 08/01/2014] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose This study was conducted to evaluate clinical outcomes following definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for patients with N3-positive stage IIIB (N3-IIIB) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with a focus on radiation therapy (RT) techniques. Materials and Methods From May 2010 to November 2012, 77 patients with N3-IIIB NSCLC received definitive CCRT (median, 66 Gy). RT techniques were selected individually based on estimated lung toxicity, with 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) delivered to 48 (62.3%) and 29 (37.7%) patients, respectively. Weekly docetaxel/paclitaxel plus cisplatin (67, 87.0%) was the most common concurrent chemotherapy regimen. Results The median age and clinical target volume (CTV) were 60 years and 288.0 cm3, respectively. Patients receiving IMRT had greater disease extent in terms of supraclavicular lymph node (SCN) involvement and CTV ≥ 300 cm3. The median follow-up time was 21.7 months. Fortyfive patients (58.4%) experienced disease progression, most frequently distant metastasis (39, 50.6%). In-field locoregional control, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 2 years were 87.9%, 38.7%, and 75.2%, respectively. Although locoregional control was similar between RT techniques, patients receiving IMRT had worse PFS and OS, and SCN metastases from the lower lobe primary tumor and CTV ≥ 300 cm3were associated with worse OS. The incidence and severity of toxicities did not differ significantly between RT techniques. Conclusion IMRT could lead to similar locoregional control and toxicity, while encompassing a greater disease extent than 3D-CRT. The decision to apply IMRT should be made carefully after considering oncologic outcomes associated with greater disease extent and cost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jae Myoung Noh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jin Man Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yong Chan Ahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hongryull Pyo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - BoKyong Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dongryul Oh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang Gyu Ju
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jin Sung Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jung Suk Shin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chae-Seon Hong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyojung Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Eonju Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Intensity-modulated radiotherapy, not 3 dimensional conformal, is the preferred technique for treating locally advanced lung cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 2014; 25:110-6. [PMID: 25771415 DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2014.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
When used to treat lung cancer, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can deliver higher dose to the targets and spare more critical organs in lung cancer than can 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. However, tumor-motion management and optimized radiotherapy planning based on 4-dimensional computed tomography scanning are crucial to maximize the benefit of IMRT and to eliminate or minimize potential uncertainties. This article summarizes these strategies and reviews published findings supporting the safety and efficacy of IMRT for lung cancer.
Collapse
|
50
|
Ayadi M, Zahra N, Thariat J, Bouilhol G, Boissard P, Van Houtte P, Claude L, Mornex F. Radiothérapie conformationnelle avec modulation d’intensité dans les carcinomes bronchiques non à petites cellules. Cancer Radiother 2014; 18:406-13. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2014.06.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2014] [Revised: 06/24/2014] [Accepted: 06/29/2014] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|